> Brian went to great lengths to stress how very, > very speculative all of the following is and how > much things might evolve or simply get dropped. He > went

> Brian went to great lengths to stress how very, > very speculative all of the following is and how > much things might evolve or simply get dropped. He > went so far to let everyone in the audience sign an > acknowledgment thereof (just mentally but still) and > explicitly forbade any sensationalist tweets. > Well… first of all, this is no tweet and second of all, > I wasn’t in that audience. Oh well. So they agree it's sensationalist and I won't hold my breath for those things to appear in the near future. For a recent new release of our library at work we dropped compatibility for Java < 8. I actually tried finding out how far the value types proposal had progressed (since we convert the code from C# we actually have value types that were turned into classes in Java again) to see whether we can do things now that would integrate cleanly into a new Java language version later without drastic API changes on our part. Alas, nothing was to be found except for the original 2014 proposal. Another point is the upgraded switch statement with pattern matching. The next version of C# is currently trying to add this and the current form looks a lot different from the initial proposal. I expect reality to change a fair bit of how those features will end up in Java eventually.